A completely new system - Is there any interest?
- Thread starter Hautamaki
- Start date
Sir Brennen
Legend
Sounds like you want to play GURPS, which uses a 3d6 resolution mechanic, and skills modifiers are purchased at an increasing geometric cost, in keeping with the bell curve.Hautamaki said:
If you're really worried about randomness in initial stat creation, why not use one of the DMG point buy methods? With your 2d6 + 6 method, the odds of getting an 8 or an 18 are actually increased, and the middle-ground is diminished. Still seems stressful to me.
I don't neccessarily agree that current three mental stats are purely for just roleplaying the character. There are definitely situations where a hign Int would be mechanically beneficial (researching in a library, for example.) And obviously, dropping these stats wouldn't work for a more "standard" game which does include spellcasters. It's one thing to have a low-magic campaign. But a low-magic system which makes spellcasters mechanical unfeasable... you can't even really call it a D&D variant anymore.
Charisma can definitely influence NPC reations and dealings. If I'm a shy, not terribly eloquent player, am I penalized in your game because I'm not able to act as charismatic as I claim my rogue is? Also, you might want to take a look at the thread around here which suggests using Charisma for Will Saves, thus decreasing it's status as a "dump" stat.
You might want to take a look at how Iron Heroes does skills, which lumps them into groups. Adding one point into a group (like Athletics) increases all skills in the group by one point (Jump, Swim, Climb, ect.)
That's nice. But as you yourself seem to realize with your other statements, modeling "real world" combat doesn't neccessarily lead to workable and balanced game mechanics. Or even "fun" ones. For systems which do add a lot more detail to normal "swing/hit/swing/hit" combat, I again suggest Iron Heroes for d20, or GURPS which contains a greater element of tactical combat.
I already commented on the low magic campaign thing. As for the idea that spellcasters in the standard game are more powerful and more 'fun'... that's highly debatable.
Nope. But Conan could
D&D, as a fantasy game, emulates fantasy tropes more than real world ones (though one could argue the world of pro wrestling is fantasy as well.)
But there's already methods to handle these sorts of things that don't neccessitate rebuilding the whole system. The Mob rules from DMGII are good for the army vs. party scenario you mention. The Grim and Gritty rules that float around on the boards are servicable, too.
I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with your suggestions. But if you see so many problems with D&D, why not simply find a game system which matches your style of play better? Again, I'm thinking GURPS would be right up your alley. Or, if you're going to make so many drastic changes, just design your own game from scratch, and forget about trying to make it a D&D variant.
Or you could just call it 4E
Ok first I'll address a few of the replies, then post the rules in totality. It should be noted that I also created a campaign world for the system, but by no means would I insist anyone use that world. Hopefully most of the things can be easily adapted to any world.
First of all, several people pointed out other role playing systems. I'm sure there are tons of great ones out there, but as an amateur game designer, I derive great joy in designing things myself. I have never even looked at any role playing system apart from D&D. I'm sure that my system has a great deal in common with many other systems, but it's just because of coincidence (or great minds thinking alike! =])
Also, I'm not trying to sell this as a D&D variant. I stated repeatedly, this is NOT D&D, and if you just want a variant or variant rules, there are loads already available, as has been pointed out. This is a whole new system from the ground up and I'm not calling it D&D, D20, or any WoTC trademark names. All I'm calling it is a fantasy role playing system which has many themes and some mechanics that are similar to D&D.
Some people made the claim that Int, Wis, Cha, etc can occasionally be mechanically useful abilities, even outside of spellcasting. Almost all of those cases can be handled by either Perception or Willpower. The very very few remaining situations (such as researching at a Library I suppose) certainly do not warrant a new ability score. The ability scores ought to be relatively balanced in terms of their utility in my opinion, otherwise the choice of where to put your points becomes less interesting, and thus less fun. Also Arkhandus mentioned that even dumb players should be allowed to have smart characters, by which he means they can roll an intelligence check to solve puzzles etc. If I come up with an exciting/interesting puzzle, I want my players to go through the experience of trying to solve it, not simply roll a DC. Why role-play at all if that's fun? Moreover, we could think of the entire game as a kind of puzzle, so wouldn't that imply that they can simply roll an intelligence/wisdom check at any time, and if successful the DM must advise them on what would be the wisest/most intelligent course of action?
Also some people didn't like the idea that a mob can be dangerous for a lone character. I suppose that's largely a matter of taste, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Moreover, the feeling of fear and vulnerability is actually very enjoyable when it can be experienced vicariously (for most people). A lot of the fun goes out of the game when characters feel basically invulnerable. I kind of think that most players derive a little enjoyment from the fact that if they wander out into the wilds by themselves, they actually get into danger. A high level D&D character who wanders out into the wilds by himself has almost nothing to fear unless he accidentally stumbles upon a tribe of ogre-mages or something. No high level character would even bother to wander into a goblin cave, because it would be a pointless exercise in futility for the goblins to try to kill the hero, thus making that possible scenario rather tiresome. Instead we're left with high level heroes wandering into Beholder dens, Mind Flayer lairs, and tribes of Giants. Some players obviously enjoy this, but I find it strains my credulity and moreover my suspension of disbelief that 4 humans walk into a group of 20 giants and win. I just can't picture it. Could you picture a group of 4 tiny people that come up to your knees walking onto a rugby pitch and beating the snot out of every player on both teams at once? Yet this is a common circumstance in high level D&D. If you have no problem with that, clearly this system isn't for you.
A related point argued that in a low-magic campaign things like floating cities, underwater cities, and all kinds of interesting things are prohibited against. Actually, my campaign does make use of such fantastic things--but they are strictly controlled. For instance, if I were to use a flying carpet, I would make sure the PCs can only use it to advance the plot, not use it to get around the plot. In general, if I want to introduce some fantastic thing, I merely say it is the result of the work of some deity, who created said thing for some specific reason; floating/underwater cities can and do exist--but they aren't created by mere humans.
Some people mentioned that they wanted to run their D&D campaigns more like a story--and less like a competition between the DM and the Players. This is exactly where I'm coming from; I couldn't have put it better myself. D&D right now far too frequently turns into a contest of one-upsmanship between players and DM, where the DM tries to devise a situation difficult enough to challenge and threaten the PCs, while the PCs try to come up with ways to manipulate the incredible powers at their disposal to get around or avoid these challenges but still claim the reward. Again, if that appeals to you, this system may not be for you.
One person seemed to have the mistaken idea that I powered down Ranged combat. Quite the contrary, I powered it UP a great deal.
Someone had the mistaken idea that people didn't swing greatswords. Of course they swung them! If they weren't for swinging, they wouldn't bother making a cutting edge! The use of the greatsword (as in Zweihander or Flamberge, as there isn't really a good English word for 'greatsword' in as much as the English army never really employed them in great numbers) was as a hacking weapon. It was used to counter units of polearms by hacking the long spears to pieces, then hacking the users of said polearms. Yes it could be used defensively as a piercing weapon as well but that was by no means it's primary purpose. Even a simple look at wikipedia can tell you that much.
Other than that, if I didn't specifically address a given comment, assume I agree with you. Most of your comments were indeed valid and useful.
I'll create a new thread to post the complete rules, and address all questions and comments there.
**Addendum**
Apparently the computer I'm at is too slow to post everything, so I'll have to switch computers and try again in a few hours. Sorry!
First of all, several people pointed out other role playing systems. I'm sure there are tons of great ones out there, but as an amateur game designer, I derive great joy in designing things myself. I have never even looked at any role playing system apart from D&D. I'm sure that my system has a great deal in common with many other systems, but it's just because of coincidence (or great minds thinking alike! =])
Also, I'm not trying to sell this as a D&D variant. I stated repeatedly, this is NOT D&D, and if you just want a variant or variant rules, there are loads already available, as has been pointed out. This is a whole new system from the ground up and I'm not calling it D&D, D20, or any WoTC trademark names. All I'm calling it is a fantasy role playing system which has many themes and some mechanics that are similar to D&D.
Some people made the claim that Int, Wis, Cha, etc can occasionally be mechanically useful abilities, even outside of spellcasting. Almost all of those cases can be handled by either Perception or Willpower. The very very few remaining situations (such as researching at a Library I suppose) certainly do not warrant a new ability score. The ability scores ought to be relatively balanced in terms of their utility in my opinion, otherwise the choice of where to put your points becomes less interesting, and thus less fun. Also Arkhandus mentioned that even dumb players should be allowed to have smart characters, by which he means they can roll an intelligence check to solve puzzles etc. If I come up with an exciting/interesting puzzle, I want my players to go through the experience of trying to solve it, not simply roll a DC. Why role-play at all if that's fun? Moreover, we could think of the entire game as a kind of puzzle, so wouldn't that imply that they can simply roll an intelligence/wisdom check at any time, and if successful the DM must advise them on what would be the wisest/most intelligent course of action?
Also some people didn't like the idea that a mob can be dangerous for a lone character. I suppose that's largely a matter of taste, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Moreover, the feeling of fear and vulnerability is actually very enjoyable when it can be experienced vicariously (for most people). A lot of the fun goes out of the game when characters feel basically invulnerable. I kind of think that most players derive a little enjoyment from the fact that if they wander out into the wilds by themselves, they actually get into danger. A high level D&D character who wanders out into the wilds by himself has almost nothing to fear unless he accidentally stumbles upon a tribe of ogre-mages or something. No high level character would even bother to wander into a goblin cave, because it would be a pointless exercise in futility for the goblins to try to kill the hero, thus making that possible scenario rather tiresome. Instead we're left with high level heroes wandering into Beholder dens, Mind Flayer lairs, and tribes of Giants. Some players obviously enjoy this, but I find it strains my credulity and moreover my suspension of disbelief that 4 humans walk into a group of 20 giants and win. I just can't picture it. Could you picture a group of 4 tiny people that come up to your knees walking onto a rugby pitch and beating the snot out of every player on both teams at once? Yet this is a common circumstance in high level D&D. If you have no problem with that, clearly this system isn't for you.
A related point argued that in a low-magic campaign things like floating cities, underwater cities, and all kinds of interesting things are prohibited against. Actually, my campaign does make use of such fantastic things--but they are strictly controlled. For instance, if I were to use a flying carpet, I would make sure the PCs can only use it to advance the plot, not use it to get around the plot. In general, if I want to introduce some fantastic thing, I merely say it is the result of the work of some deity, who created said thing for some specific reason; floating/underwater cities can and do exist--but they aren't created by mere humans.
Some people mentioned that they wanted to run their D&D campaigns more like a story--and less like a competition between the DM and the Players. This is exactly where I'm coming from; I couldn't have put it better myself. D&D right now far too frequently turns into a contest of one-upsmanship between players and DM, where the DM tries to devise a situation difficult enough to challenge and threaten the PCs, while the PCs try to come up with ways to manipulate the incredible powers at their disposal to get around or avoid these challenges but still claim the reward. Again, if that appeals to you, this system may not be for you.
One person seemed to have the mistaken idea that I powered down Ranged combat. Quite the contrary, I powered it UP a great deal.
Someone had the mistaken idea that people didn't swing greatswords. Of course they swung them! If they weren't for swinging, they wouldn't bother making a cutting edge! The use of the greatsword (as in Zweihander or Flamberge, as there isn't really a good English word for 'greatsword' in as much as the English army never really employed them in great numbers) was as a hacking weapon. It was used to counter units of polearms by hacking the long spears to pieces, then hacking the users of said polearms. Yes it could be used defensively as a piercing weapon as well but that was by no means it's primary purpose. Even a simple look at wikipedia can tell you that much.
Other than that, if I didn't specifically address a given comment, assume I agree with you. Most of your comments were indeed valid and useful.
I'll create a new thread to post the complete rules, and address all questions and comments there.
**Addendum**
Apparently the computer I'm at is too slow to post everything, so I'll have to switch computers and try again in a few hours. Sorry!
Last edited:
genshou
First Post
I don't think d20 System comes anywhere near matching your gaming style. It's good that you're tinkering to get the system you want.
I strongly disagree with the majority of your assertions, but others are already debating it fairly well. I'll only counter one point that hasn't been countered yet.
We ran the same combat again, with the Fighter only equipped with nonmagical equipment (but all of it the best he could buy). Fighter: 213. Orcs: 1. The Fighter lasted 27 combat rounds.
A 12th-level character could not last against an army. Even at the most absurd ends of the scale, that Fighter only lasted for about 4 minutes, and defeated less than half the army.
As to the issue with initiative, how long does it take to fire a gun at someone before they close to melee range? Police are trained to fire on anyone within 20 feet armed with a melee weapon, because they won't have time to fire off a shot before the attacker closes even if their gun is already trained on the attacker. How long does it take to react to an attacker who reacted quicker than you and is already charging at you, then nock an arrow, draw the string back, aim, and fire?
I strongly disagree with the majority of your assertions, but others are already debating it fairly well. I'll only counter one point that hasn't been countered yet.
Have you ever actually run a combat between a 12th-level Fighter and an army of 1st-level Fighters? I once ran a combat between an appropriately-armed 20th-level human Fighter and an army of 1111 War1 orcs (split up among various types of units such as standard spear-wielding infantry, pikemen, axe-wielders, cavalry, archers, etc.). The Fighter was properly optimized, but was barred from any equipment that would allow him to easily escape said battle (such as a teleportation item). Fighter: 471. Orcs: 1. The Fighter lasted 39 combat rounds. The most well-trained warrior in the world (barring epic levels) with the best in non-epic, non-artifact magical gear.
We ran the same combat again, with the Fighter only equipped with nonmagical equipment (but all of it the best he could buy). Fighter: 213. Orcs: 1. The Fighter lasted 27 combat rounds.
A 12th-level character could not last against an army. Even at the most absurd ends of the scale, that Fighter only lasted for about 4 minutes, and defeated less than half the army.
As to the issue with initiative, how long does it take to fire a gun at someone before they close to melee range? Police are trained to fire on anyone within 20 feet armed with a melee weapon, because they won't have time to fire off a shot before the attacker closes even if their gun is already trained on the attacker. How long does it take to react to an attacker who reacted quicker than you and is already charging at you, then nock an arrow, draw the string back, aim, and fire?
genshou I admire your persistance in playing through 60 odd rounds of combat to test a theory =p. I stand corrected then, a single fighter can't eliminate that army. I wonder how a 20th level spellcaster would fare though =p.
Regarding your police example, recall that I said the character has his bow out (I think that implies he's ready to fire), and sees his opponent from 60 feet away. Your counter example suggested that the bow and arrow are not ready to fire and the enemy is 20 feet away. Obviously those are two completely different situations. I might handle your situation with an initiative check as DM, but it would largely depend on the exact circumstances. In any case, yes it's certainly more than possible to run up and engage someone in melee combat before they can nock and fire off an arrow with only 20 feet between you, and my rules make no statement to the contrary.
Regarding your police example, recall that I said the character has his bow out (I think that implies he's ready to fire), and sees his opponent from 60 feet away. Your counter example suggested that the bow and arrow are not ready to fire and the enemy is 20 feet away. Obviously those are two completely different situations. I might handle your situation with an initiative check as DM, but it would largely depend on the exact circumstances. In any case, yes it's certainly more than possible to run up and engage someone in melee combat before they can nock and fire off an arrow with only 20 feet between you, and my rules make no statement to the contrary.
Arbiter of Wyrms
First Post
Hautamaki, welcome to the boards. You've found the right place.
As for your suggestions/observations about the underlying mechanics involved in fantasy roleplaying, . . ., well, all I can say is, . . .
Welcome to ENWorld. You've found the right place.
As for your suggestions/observations about the underlying mechanics involved in fantasy roleplaying, . . ., well, all I can say is, . . .
Welcome to ENWorld. You've found the right place.
Last edited:
genshou
First Post
Fact of the matter is, you can't have an arrow ready all the time. That would be exhausting. You might have it nocked, but holding the bowstring back all day would wear you out fast. Your example situation was both monster and archer becoming aware of one another at a distance of 60 feet.Hautamaki said:
To go with another example, I saw a TV documentary where they had two men face off with nonlethal weaponry, one with a gun firing blanks and the other with a fake knife. The goal of the guy with the gun was to draw his weapon and fire on his opponent before he closed the 30-foot distance, and he couldn't draw until the other guy started moving. He failed every time.
It seems like a guy charging 60 feet isn't coming at the victim very fast... until you're the victim.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (242) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
